Art Chonko, Denison University, stated that the application is pretty straight forward. Ms. Terry stated that the current building is “L” shaped and the proposal is to remove part of the building and put an addition on. She stated that there are also some pathways on the property being redone. Ms. Terry stated that there are a few trees that the applicant is proposing to remove. She stated that there is not any additional landscaping being proposed, nor any additional parking. Mr. Ryan inquired on the lighting for the building. Mr. Chonko stated that the acorn pole light fixtures will be added and there will be some additional sidewalk lighting. Mr. Chonko stated that the lighting will be consistent with the current lighting that is on the building as it is now. Mr. Ryan indicated that the application meets all of the requirements and Ms. Terry agreed. Mr. Chonko stated that they hope to use the building for more public events. Mr. Mitchell stated that there are not any architectural aspects for the Planning Commission to review. Ms. Terry agreed and stated that this is not located in the Architectural Review Overlay District and it is being reviewed only because it is in the Institutional District. Mr. Chonko stated that any lighting would be interior to the campus and not viewable from the public street.

Vince Ghiloni, 3230 Canyon Road, stated that he would be constructing the new garage and that the old garage burnt to the ground recently. Ms. Terry noted that a variance is required from the BZBA for side yard setbacks and this is due to the fact that over 60% of the structure was lost in the fire. Mr. Ryan asked if the color of the garage would match the color of the house. Mr. Ghiloni stated yes. Mr. Johnson asked if the siding will also match the house. Mr. Ghiloni stated yes. Mr. Ryan inquired on the pitch of the garage roof in comparison to the pitch of the roof on the house. Bryan Davis, 3391 Battee Road, stated that adding more pitch to this roof will make it more historical and his long term plans for the house are to tie it into the new garage roof line with an addition. Mr. Ryan stated that the Code states that the new structure has to be considered to be compatible with other structures adjacent to the existing structure. Mr. Johnson asked how the height of the garage compares with existing neighboring properties. Mr. Bryan stated that Ms. Terry has indicated that most of the houses on this block are mostly one to one and a half stories. Mr. Davis stated that Melissa Hartfield’s home on South Pearl Street is behind his home and it is a two-story structure with a 10/12 pitch. Mr. Davis indicated that the old garage had an unusable attic before and the new garage will have more usable attic space. Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed dimensional roof shingles are close to what is currently on the house. Mr. Davis stated that the house shingles will be changed at some point to dimensional shingle and the color is onyx black shingles. Mr. Ryan stated that the existing home has a light gray roof. Mr. Davis stated that this garage sits back from the house and is really not visible from the street. Mr. Ryan asked the current location of the windows. Mr. Davis stated that they are eliminating the one window in the back for security reasons and one window on the west side for privacy. Mr. Davis indicated that there will be a double hung window on the east side of the home. Mr. Johnson asked if there will be two downspouts per side or one. Mr. Ghiloni stated one gutter/downspout per side. Mr. Ryan asked if the window on the gable will have shutters. Mr. Davis stated yes. Mr. Burriss asked if there will be a window on the rear gable. Mr. Davis stated no. Mr. Burriss stated that he would want to ensure that the steel garage door would be centered because this is not what is indicated on the submitted drawings. Mr. Ghiloni stated that it will be centered even if the site plan does not depict this. Mr. Ghiloni stated that the previous door was eighteen feet wide and was not centered and the new door will be sixteen feet wide and centered. Mr. Mitchell encouraged the applicant to provide additional information and drawings with any future applications.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-4:

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the existing garage is consistent with other garages approved in the AROD district.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed garage is more representative of an earlier period than the garage that was located on the property before it burned down.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by storing items that would otherwise be visible.

d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded yes.

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, indicated that he is the architect for this project. Mr. Clapsadle explained that this is the next phase of the project he started last year. He stated that this is also in preparation for a potential next phase and he designed this keeping that in mind. Mr. Clapsadle stated that the addition will hardly be seen from the street. He stated that all of the materials will match the existing home. Mr. Clapsadle stated that the roof color does not match exactly and the entire roof will eventually be replaced. Ms. Terry stated that all of the requirements have been met. Mr. Ryan asked if there are any lot coverage issues. Ms. Terry stated that the lot coverage requirements have been met. Mr. Burriss asked if the gutters will be consistent with the gutters on the rest of the home. Mr. Clapsadle stated that they will be ogee gutters to match the gutters already on the home. Mr. Burriss asked the gutter location. Mr. Clapsadle stated that they will be placed in the rear corners of the addition. Mr. Johnson asked if a cricket or a saddle will be used for the chimney. Mr. Clapsadle stated that a cricket will be used for the chimney.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-6:

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes.

b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated the addition detailing matches that of the detailing on the existing structure.

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced.

d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the addition is consistent with the original structure.

e) Building Massing: Mr. Burriss stated that the massing is appropriate with the existing structure and other structures in the area.

f) Building Height: Building Height: 20'6" height with a 10/12 roof pitch;

g) Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing the following materials:

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-4 as submitted by the applicant.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-6 as submitted by the applicant.